RIAA Sues Stroke Victim in Michigan 328
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA has now brought suit against a stroke victim in Michigan in Warner v. Paladuk. The defendant John Paladuk was living in Florida at the time of the alleged copyright infringement, and had notified the RIAA that he had not engaged in any copyright infringement. Despite the fact that Mr. Paladuk suffered a stroke last year (pdf), rendering him disabled, the RIAA commenced suit against him on February 27, 2007. Suing the disabled is not new to the RIAA. Both Atlantic v. Andersen in Oregon and Elektra v. Schwartz in New York were suits brought against disabled people who have never engaged in file sharing, and whose sole income is Social Security Disability. Both of these cases are still pending. The local Michigan lawyer being used by the RIAA in the Paladuk case is the same lawyer who was accused by a 15 year old girl of telling her what to say at her deposition in Motown v. Nelson. In the Warner v. Scantlebury case, after the defendant died during the lawsuit, the same lawyer indicated to the court that he was going to give the family '60 days to grieve' before he would start deposing the late Mr. Scantlebury's children."
And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Having a stroke and/or receiving disability payments renders one incapable of copyright infringement? Does the BitTorrent client refuse to install if it detects a Social Security check in the vicinity?
Being disabled isn't evidence of innocence, unless the disability is such that one is incapable of even using a computer. If the guy broke the law, he broke the law. I happen to think the law sucks and needs to be changed post haste, but it sucks for everyone, not just stroke victims and the handicapped.
In short, the RIAA is as within its rights here as it is in any of its other cases.
Re:And that matters why? (Score:2, Insightful)
check out that lawyer, though. ten bucks says he's on the naughty list.
The "RIAA" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Evil much (Score:5, Insightful)
Dream On! (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really think this means anything?
The American ideal is dead. We are all just trying to keep our heads down and to survive the machine we have built.
Re:Someday... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:i just need to know (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someday... (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA is a fanaticle group. Any traditional tactic that could be used to display displeasure of something is only fuel to their cause. It is past the point were a boycot could work. It is past the point were you or i could make a difference. And that is because we could never make a difference. RIAA is the sole reaction to the market trying to prove a point.
What RIAA is doing right now is covering for lack of sale and bad business decisions. They are giving the recording industry excuses for artist not making the money they deserve and they are giving excuses to share holders for producing run of the mill stuff and passing it off as something it isn't. The more RIAA sues, the more smoke covers how the artis is being treated and paid.
Re:And of course (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes, Disabled people could do thing wrong. The objection is that they are on limited income and probably don't have the ability to defend themselves or pay the settlment. Also, people with disabilities are often seen as needing special exceptions. So take it for what it is worth. It does show how low RIAA will go but then again it reflects more on what society values or more likely, how society values the crap RIAA is producing. It is worth having it is it free but not worth it if you have to pay!
Re:Evil much (Score:1, Insightful)
RIAA (Score:4, Insightful)
Then your justive system sucks (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It works with books (Score:3, Insightful)
Distributing something across the internet would be considered large scal productions. If you have a torrent and there are 20 people leaching from your half downloaded song and then you leave the torrent for a week, you have effectivly let several thousand people have the song. You are a large scale producer/pirater. And you need to get it from somewhere so you will need to have some large scale pirating system set up to get the ball rolling.
Otherwise, you have exactly what we have today but now RIAA gets a cut from every picture CD you make of you last trip. Riaa gets a profit from you doing a backup to DVD of your documents. The only difference would be RIAA getting money for stuff totaly unrelated.
Re:And that matters why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The "RIAA" (Score:5, Insightful)
Artist:"why am in not getting a bunch of money?"
Record industry: "because everyone is downloading your songs without paying for them instead of buying the CD!"
Artist: "Are you doing anything about it?"
Record industry:"Sure, we are going after them thru RIAA.".
And then the record company laughs before depositing all their profits, They pause to light their cigars with burning 100 dollar bills.
Mod Up - bogus argument (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an Appeal to Pity. [nizkor.org]
Yes, we all know the RIAA kills puppies and causes gout. But is it too much to ask to find articles about the RIAA that simply tell the facts as they are about them? They're bad enough, and they'll stand on their own.
Re:And of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:1, Insightful)
you think we should discriminate so that disabled people are presumed mroe innocent than fit people?
what horsehit.
this is typical slashdot bollocks to justify whining about the RIAA, and defending copyright theft again. frankly its pathetic.
Re:And of course (Score:1, Insightful)
See recent Slashdot article for related info and links. [slashdot.org]
Have to wonder if the lawyer(s) for the current victim is looking up precedence for appending invoices for related medical expenses to a countersuit. Stress related costs at least imo should be included. Even if the accused doesn't have to appear in court (which might would require additional medicines and/or the presence of medical assistance, special transport, etc) the stress could effect his state of mind and body and require additional treatments. If depositions are taken either at the defendants home, hospital room, doctor's office or even the lawyer's offices, similar costs would arise and additionally anything outside of the lawyers' offices makes for extra costs to the lawyers even if not billable. It might even be wise for a lawyer to insist upon medical observation of deposition or court appearance for the sake of liability. Even obtaining a doctor's opinion on whether or not this is necessary has a costs involved.
IANAL or a doctor, but I am sure if I left anything out or got excessive that Ray or another will correct me. In fact I am hoping for some doctor and lawyer opinions/facts here and that some of them might actually help the victims of the RIAA.
Have to wonder if any of the deaths before trial process might have been hastened by stress related to being sued by the RIAA. RIAA lawyers may even be hoping those with medical problems settle instead of fighting just to avoid the stress and additional costs. Defendant's lawyers in these cases can be the shining knights for protection of the ill and downtrodden. Too many in this country settle instead of fighting the good fight, we need more shining knights and fewer facilitators of the system.
Re:Evil much (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that there are credible arguments for education and road building being of help to society as a whole. Thus it is perfectly possible that people without children may derive a benefit from everyone being given a basic education and people without cars may derive a benefit from the existance of roads.
The difference is that there are a lot fewer aguments in favour of supporting an obsolete business model. At least from the point of view of society as a whole.
Re:Someday... (Score:2, Insightful)
I know about RIAA Radar, the site that lists music that IS RIAA owned, but is there a site that reviews music that ISN'T owned by them? I'm an Industrial/DnB fan and I'd like to not give money to people who sue children and the disabled.
Re:And that matters why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummmmm, the guy is housebound? Do you think he'd do more playing, downloading, etc, on the computer, or less, than the person who has a full time job, kids, goes to the gym, etc., etc.? Of course he probably uses the computer more, as a great outlet considering his disability.
And while I disagree with current fair use policies, and movie pricing schemes, etc., I don't see any reason why a disability should be an exemption from any of the rules of society (other than parking in handicapped spaces).
Yes, there is an instinctive "let's show some compassion and cut this poor bugger some slack" reaction, but until something like that is actually written into a law, one can't fault any organization (who likely wasn't even aware of his problem) for treating him as shittily as they treat the rest of the population. The fact they treat the rest of the population so shitty, is the problem.
Public Media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Someday... (Score:2, Insightful)
They could try, but when the artists they claim to be protecting start to scream for the heads of the lawyers, things would change.
It would only take a 20 - 30% drop in a short period to get their attention. The trick is getting the boycott organized and getting publicity.
Re:Someday... (Score:1, Insightful)
someone with nothing to lose will stroll into the RIAA headquarters strapped with explosives. Who will be the first martyr?
Re:Mod Up - bogus argument (Score:3, Insightful)